# Vouchers: Uneven Competition? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 23, 2001, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vouchers-uneven-competition/51428 "2001-01-23T18:01:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Danielinthewolvesden](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ce7236/32.png) [@Danielinthewolvesden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Danielinthewolvesden)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2001, 10:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vouchers-uneven-competition/51428/41 "2001-01-27T10:16:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by pldennison \* > liar. liar. \*\* pld- I am undone- I have been defeated by your masterful debating techniques of proving your point by repeating it over & over- but each time with more capital letters and exclamation marks. And, then when that fails- resorting to personal & ad hominem attacks. The sheer brilliance is overwhelming. I am afraid that there is only one arguement left that can match your level of maturity, reasoning, and scathing wit: “I know you are, but what am I?!” ---
**Author:** ![pldennison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9fc29f/32.png) [@pldennison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pldennison)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2001, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vouchers-uneven-competition/51428/42 "2001-01-27T17:06:32Z")
Whatever, Danny. I won’t stay awake nights waiting for those cites that demonstrate that I call everyone who disagrees with me a liar; since they’re impossible to produce, it wouldn’t be worth it. Suffice to say that your willingness to make such an assertion without defending it is another one in the 'lie" column for you. Nor will I belabor the point that the last paragraph of your penultimate post was entirely _ad hominem_. Don’t let the door hit your ass on the way out, y’hear? ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2001, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vouchers-uneven-competition/51428/43 "2001-01-27T21:24:12Z")
I find this debate to be very interesting from a role reversal standpoint. Here, it seems the conservatives are advocating change, and the liberals are seeking toi maintain the status quo. Ted Kennedy said something interesting two days ago during a sound bite on the news. I paraphrase: [quote] The similarities between the parties say more than the differences. Both parties recognize the failing of the public school systems, and see the immediate need to remedy the situation. The biggest problem with vouchers is that they are polarizing what should be a bipartisan issue, and as such may stand in the way of a meaningful resolution to the education problem\*\* I of course, am saying it better in my paraphrase, than he said it. That being said, vouchers **will** help **some** students get a better education than they are otherwise receiving. I don’t think anybody is denying that they would help some children who would otherwise receive an inferior education. Some of the state Colleges in this country are top quality because they compete directly with private schools and can turn away and expel students. The opportunity for a first class education is a right every child should have. It is also a privilege, and it is a privilege that should be lost if a particular child’s disruptiveness is interfering with the rights of other children. I particularly think that the tiered meritocracy of our College system, with its admittance requirements structured to facilitate upward mobility could be a real advantage if implemented into our public school system. If the vouchers were structured like collegiate financial aid programs, that would help ensure that the money got in the hands of those who most need it. Do the vouchers solve the problem? No, but they may be a step in the right direction. Mainstreaming a child who is not ready to be mainstreamed hurts both that child and his/her classmates. Vouchering would do little to help those students in need of remedial education, special needs, and discipline. But, I don’t think we’re doing such a good job for them. Vouchering doesn’t mean we give up on them (or it shouldn’t,) but not vouchering (or doing something similar,) means we’re letting the ship go down with empty lifeboats on its rails. ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2001, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vouchers-uneven-competition/51428/44 "2001-01-27T22:59:12Z")
The only strong argument I have seen here against vouchers is that public schools must take on problem students, and private schools wouldn’t have to. This argument ignores the fact that under the plans being contemplated, vouchers can be used at other public schools. In that case, there would be no issue of differing admission rules. But OK, put that aside. If public schools must take on students private schools turn aside, there is a simple solution - have the vouchers from problem students be worth more. That way, the public schools would have the ability to pay for the extra tutoring, counseling, etc., these problem students need. Sua ---
**Author:** ![PlanMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/2bfe46/32.png) [@PlanMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PlanMan)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2001, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vouchers-uneven-competition/51428/45 "2001-01-28T16:20:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Scylla \* > **I find this debate to be very interesting from a role reversal standpoint. Here, it seems the conservatives are advocating change, and the liberals are seeking toi maintain the status quo.** Similarly, the conservatives, who usually are apalled at Federal meddling in local issues, now applaud the Bush federal education plan, where Washington would exercise rewards and punishment to local school districts, depending on how they (the locals) behave. On the other hand, liberals, who usually welcome the Feds overcoming local backwater-ism, are not welcoming it in this case. A Question: does dubya’s plan call for the same testing in the voucher-accepting private schools, as in the public schools? If not - snake oil alert! A plan with seeming curative powers, but no evidence to back it up. The private schools that accept vouchers must undergo the same testing. More to the point, they should be able to group the voucher-kids test results, and see if they are improving in their new environment. If not, bye-bye voucher, and back to the school you came from. ---
**Author:** ![pldennison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9fc29f/32.png) [@pldennison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pldennison)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2001, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vouchers-uneven-competition/51428/46 "2001-01-28T16:27:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by PlanMan \* > \*\* > Similarly, the conservatives, who usually are apalled at Federal meddling in local issues, now applaud the Bush federal education plan, where Washington would exercise rewards and punishment to local school districts, depending on how they (the locals) behave. On the other hand, liberals, who usually welcome the Feds overcoming local backwater-ism, are not welcoming it in this case. \*\* In all fairness, though (and I’m not saying I support Bush’s plan), it should be noted that it is the states that get to set the math and reading standards for their schools, as well as to determine whether the schools are meeting or attempting to meet those standards. The role of the Feds is to act based on those assessments and dispense Title I funds and vouchers on that basis. It also says that the vouchers can be used for private schools **or** better-performing public schools. I guess one question is, if the private schools were left entirely out of the equation, and this were more of a “public school choice” plan, would it be **more** acceptable to the people who currently oppose it? ---
**Author:** ![David\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/51bf81/32.png) [@David\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_B)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2001, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vouchers-uneven-competition/51428/47 "2001-01-28T16:56:51Z")
I know it would be for me – because there would not be church/state issues that way. I’m not saying I would automatically support it, but it would certainly remove one of my biggest reasons for opposing it. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2001, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vouchers-uneven-competition/51428/48 "2001-01-28T18:35:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by David B \* > \*\*I know it would be for me – because there would not be church/state issues that way. > \*\* Say what? You of course, are referring to the possibility that a parochial school may receive Federal Funds. By that same token, you should ban welfare. After all, it’s possible some of that welfare check might go in the Church Kitty. No, I’m sorry. This is a matter of choice. Not everything is a A SOCAS issue. If you allow vouchers exccept for Parochial schools, than that’s not SOCAS, that’s discrimination, as is, it seems, objecting to vouchers on these grounds. ---
**Author:** ![David\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/51bf81/32.png) [@David\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_B)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2001, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vouchers-uneven-competition/51428/49 "2001-01-28T21:36:26Z")
I’m sorry you don’t understand SOCAS. However, debating that here would be taking this thread off on a tangent. I was merely answering Phil’s question about whether it would be more acceptable under his conditions. I don’t have the time nor the energy right now to go over this well-trodden ground again with you. I will just say that if you want get a good idea of what I think, the [Americans United for the Separation of Church and State](http://www.au.org/) website does a good job of summarizing. Here is a [good recent press release of theirs](http://www.au.org/pr12301.htm) on the issue. And they have many other good articles and online pamphlets that discuss the issue. You can also do a search on old threads here and probably find where I have explained this more than a couple times. If, after checking out all of this, you really feel the need to rehash this particular topic, please start a new thread. ---
**Author:** ![PlanMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/2bfe46/32.png) [@PlanMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PlanMan)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2001, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vouchers-uneven-competition/51428/50 "2001-01-28T21:37:13Z")
\*\* > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by PlanMan \* > \*\* > Similarly, the conservatives, who usually are apalled at Federal meddling in local issues, now applaud the Bush federal education plan, where Washington would exercise rewards and punishment to local school districts, depending on how they (the locals) behave. On the other hand, liberals, who usually welcome the Feds overcoming local backwater-ism, are not welcoming it in this case. \*\* In all fairness, though (and I’m not saying I support Bush’s plan), it should be noted that it is the states that get to set the math and reading standards for their schools, as well as to determine whether the schools are meeting or attempting to meet those standards. The role of the Feds is to act based on those assessments and dispense Title I funds and vouchers on that basis. It also says that the vouchers can be used for private schools **or** better-performing public schools. I guess one question is, if the private schools were left entirely out of the equation, and this were more of a “public school choice” plan, would it be **more** acceptable to the people who currently oppose it? \*\* [/QUOTE] Point taken. However, you ignore the Federal urge to use money to control. Do you really think the Feds would accept some state setting the passing score on the standardized test as, say 50%? How about 60%? and so on. At first, it would probably just be guidelines, but evenutally, Washington would say, “If your passing score is not at least 70%, no Federal funds will be available.” This already happens with transportation funding, first with speed limits (remember 55 mph?), and with the DUI BAC (initially 0.10, now 0.08). So why wouldn’t it happen with education funding? Regards your other point, about taking private schools out of the equation, we already have that, to _some_ extent in my county, thru magnet schools. ---
**Author:** ![drachillix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/48db29/32.png) [@drachillix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drachillix)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2001, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vouchers-uneven-competition/51428/51 "2001-01-28T22:40:45Z")
Well I went to a “national exemplary HS” for 2 years \ Their solution to many problems was “want a good school, you’re gonna pay for it.” As I understand it, the Clovis Unified School district asked for and recieved an addition to property taxes in their district and they pay higher wages than other districts in the area from that fund. Therefore since everyone wants to have a better wage, there is more applicants for teaching jobs, allowing them to choose from a wider base of candidates. I know the extra $150-$200 a year isnt something people look forward to paying but if it would result in the quality teaching that I feel i recieved I think they are a model of how many other areas could benefit and I would happily pay that extra $20 a month. ---
**Author:** ![PlanMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/2bfe46/32.png) [@PlanMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PlanMan)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2001, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vouchers-uneven-competition/51428/52 "2001-01-30T16:25:45Z")
Since posting this, I have taken a look at “No Child Left Behind,” Pres. Bush’s plan to reform education. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by PlanMan_ > A Question: does dubya’s plan call for the same testing in the voucher-accepting private schools, as in the public schools? If not - snake oil alert! A plan with seeming curative powers, but no evidence to back it up. The private schools that accept vouchers must undergo the same testing. More to the point, they should be able to group the voucher-kids test results, and see if they are improving in their new environment. If not, bye-bye voucher, and back to the school you came from. Although the Plan does not specifically mention testing in private schools that receive vouchers, it does say this, **Protects Homeschools and Private Schools. Federal requirements do not apply to home schools or private schools. Protections in current law would be maintained.** (page 9 of the text, or p.11 of 31 in Acrobat) Thus, parents trying to choose an “alternative” will have no objective way to tell how “good” a private school is. The same standards that give little Johnny a voucher don’t apply to the competition. Administrators, at the local, state, and Federal levels, without the same measuring stick, will have no way of knowing whether the students they are “helping” with vouchers are **really** being helped. Which gets back to the OP, as currently presented, dubya’s plan furthers the unfair competition through vouchers. Until this point is corrected, vouchers are snake oil. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/vouchers-uneven-competition/51428.md?page=2)